Mamlock

Mamlock v. Williams

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 55·55 Cal. App. 175·202 P. 927
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 1921Civ. No. 3928.California966 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants in an action brought to recover the sum of three thousand dollars, due upon a promissory note executed by defendant Edwin H. Williams in favor of the plaintiff, and which by an agreement subsequently entered into between Williams and his codefendant Robert L. Coleman the latter undertook to pay. Coleman haying died after the commencement of the action, his executrix, Frances E. Coleman, was substituted as defendant in his stead.

The plaintiff and Robert L. Coleman were copartners doing business under the name of Aleo Taxicab Company when, on January 1, 1916, the former sold all his interest in the concern to Edwin H. Williams, and the note in suit was given by Williams as a portion of the purchase price thereof. The note was payable in monthly installments. On the day that the note was executed, and as a part of the same transaction, the plaintiff executed the following writing:

On January 25, 1916, and shortly after the above transaction, Coleman purchased, from Williams his newly acquired interest in the Aleo Taxicab Company, and in connection with said purchase executed and delivered to Williams a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.